nworks_task_delete

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses that it requires OAuth with task and user.read scope, which is useful behavioral information. It does not mention side effects like permanent deletion or irreversibility, but the destructiveHint annotation already covers that. The idempotentHint is also in annotations. The description adds authentication context, earning a 4 rather than a 3.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. It conveys the essential information without redundancy. Every word adds value, and it is well-structured for quick comprehension.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description does not specify return values, which is acceptable. It covers the action, parameter usage, and authentication. However, it does not mention possible errors or exceptions, which is a minor gap. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The parameter taskId is described as '삭제할 할 일 ID' (todo ID to delete) and explicitly states it can be retrieved via nworks_task_list. This fully explains the parameter's purpose and how to obtain it, making the schema self-sufficient.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States clearly that it deletes a todo. The description directly says '할 일을 삭제합니다' (deletes a todo), which is unambiguous. It also specifies how to obtain the taskId, making the purpose fully clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description indicates the task ID can be retrieved via nworks_task_list, implying a workflow. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with create or update, the action (delete) is self-evident. It also mentions required authentication scopes, which aids usage. Slight gap: no explicit 'use this when' statement, but the intent is clear enough.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.